JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. These appeals have been filed by the claimants aggrieved against the judgment and award dated 30.9.1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajasmand ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded different sums to the claimants - Smt. Bishmilla and Smt. Bilkish for the injuries suffered by them, Amjad Mohd. for death of Smt. Rajiya Begum and has rejected the claim of Moinuddin for death of Smt. Mumtaz and has exonerated the Insurance Company from payment of compensation. 2. Applications were filed by the claimants, inter alia, with the averments that on 11.3.1995 at about 9.30 a.m. they were traveling in jeep RJ-30-C-390, which was being driven by Wahiduddin, rashly and negligently, which turned turtle resulting in injuries to the occupants of the jeep to which, Smt. Rajiya Begum and Smt. Mumtaz succumbed. Various amounts of compensation were claimed for the death of Smt. Rajiya Begum and Smt. Mumtaz and for the injuries suffered by the claimants. 3. It was also claimed that the owner of the vehicle being Ikramuddin and vehicle in question being insured with the Insurance Company, they were liable to make payment of amount of compensation. Though initially appearance was made by the owner and driver of the vehicle, on counsel pleading no instructions, the matters were proceeded ex-parte against the owner and driver of the vehicle. 4. The Insurance Company filed its reply denying the averments made in the application and indicating in the additional pleas that only third party insurance was done qua the vehicle in question, the injured and the deceased were passengers in the vehicle for which, the Insurance Company was not liable as no additional premium for the risk of passengers for the vehicle was charged, the claimants and the owner, driver are all relatives and, therefore, the application was not maintainable. 5. It was also alleged that at the time of accident, in all 14 passengers were traveling in jeep, whereas, the capacity of the jeep was only 6 passengers and on account of violation of policy condition, the Insurance Company was not liable. Based on the averments made by the parties, the Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of the claimants three witnesses were examined. On behalf of the Insurance Company one witness was examined. 6. Based on the averments made by the parties, the Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of the claimants three witnesses were examined. On behalf of the Insurance Company one witness was examined. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the jeep, which resulted in death of Smt. Rajiya Begum and Smt. Mumtaz and claimants - Bishmilla and Bilkish, suffered injuries. 7. Under issue No.2 pertaining to quantum of compensation, Smt. Bilkish was held entitled to compensation of Rs. 15,000/-, Smt. Bishmilla to the extent of Rs. 32,205/-, Afzal Mohd. for death of his wife -Smt. Rajiya Begum, to the tune of Rs. 75,000/-, however, as no evidence was produced by Moinuddin, his claim was rejected. 8. While considering the issue pertaining to liability of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal noticed that as per the cover note produced, the Insurance Company had charged premium of Rs. 240/- for third party insurance, Rs. 15/- for driver and Rs. 13/- towards service tax. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that as the passengers in the vehicle were third party, the Insurance Company was liable to make payment of the amount of compensation, however, the Tribunal based on the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that as the vehicle had capacity of 6 passengers only and in all 14 passengers were traveling in the vehicle, there was violation of policy conditions and based on the fact that passengers in excess of the sitting capacity of the vehicle were traveling, exonerated the Insurance Company. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and for holding the Insurance Company liable for making payment of amount of compensation. 10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal committed grave error in coming to the conclusion that as passengers in excess of sitting capacity were being carried in the vehicle, there was violation of policy condition and the Insurance Company was not liable. It is submitted that the said aspect is no more res integra, inasmuch as, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Nagarju v. Oriental Insurance Co. It is submitted that the said aspect is no more res integra, inasmuch as, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Nagarju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.: (1996) 4 SCC 647 has laid down that breach of policy condition in carrying the passengers in excess of the sitting capacity is not such a fundamental breach so as to exonerate the Insurance Company and, therefore, the finding in this regard recorded by the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. Further submissions were made that the Tribunal committed error in awarding meager compensation to the claimants, inasmuch as, the injuries suffered by the claimants were grievous and had rendered them disabled for life and, therefore, they were entitled to award of compensation based on their loss of earning capacity, whereas only lump sum compensation has been awarded. 12. Further submissions have been made that only on account of the fact that there was conflicting material regarding the age of Smt. Rajiya Begum, lump sum compensation only has been awarded, which also deserves to be modified. 13. Regarding the case of Moinuddin, it was submitted that though no evidence was produced, the fact Smt. Mumtaz-mother of the claimant has died was not in dispute and, therefore, the Tribunal should have awarded adequate compensation. It was prayed that the appeals be allowed, the Insurance Company be held liable and compensation be enhanced adequately. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. It was submitted that though the finding of the Tribunal regarding exoneration of the Insurance Company on account of carrying passengers in excess of the sitting capacity may not be sustainable on account of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of B.V. Nagaraju (supra), it was submitted with the aid of provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 CPC that the finding of the Tribunal pertaining to exoneration of the Insurance Company is sustainable in view of the fact that as the policy in question was Act only policy, the Insurance Company was not liable to make payment of compensation for the death/injury of the passengers in the said vehicle. 15. 15. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has treated the passenger as third party and held that the Insurance Company is liable, which aspect now stands concluded by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balkrishnan & Anr., 2013 (1) SCC 731 and judgment of this Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sharda Devi & Ors.: S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.696/2003, decided on 4th August, 2016. 16. It was prayed that the finding regarding exoneration of the Insurance Company in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court deserves to be upheld, though on different grounds. Regarding the enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that based on the material available before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has appropriately awarded compensation, which does not call for any interference. 17. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 18. Insofar as the issue pertaining to the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, as noticed, hereinbefore, the Tribunal considered the aspect on two grounds, (i) passengers in excess of sitting capacity being carried in the vehicle, and (ii) the policy in question being Act only policy. 19. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that as the passengers in vehicle were third party, the Insurance Company was liable to make payment of the amount of compensation, however on the aspect of carrying passengers in excess of sitting capacity, it was held that on account of violation of policy condition, the Insurance Company was entitled to be exonerated. So far as the exoneration based on the passengers in excess of sitting capacity is concerned, the issue is no more res integra as Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Nagaraju (supra) laid down that carrying of passengers in excess of the capacity of the vehicle is not a fundamental breach of the policy conditions and the Insurance Company cannot seek exoneration from its liability on that count and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard cannot be sustained. 20. The Tribunal while considering the plea of the Insurance Company that as the policy in question was Act only policy and, therefore, the risk of passengers in the vehicle was not covered, based on judgment in Krishna Gupta & Ors. 20. The Tribunal while considering the plea of the Insurance Company that as the policy in question was Act only policy and, therefore, the risk of passengers in the vehicle was not covered, based on judgment in Krishna Gupta & Ors. v. Madan Lal & Ors.:1996 (1) ACC 372 held that the Insurance Company was liable. 21. Under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 CPC, a party is entitled to support the award passed by the Tribunal on any other ground including ground, which has been held against the said party. 22. In the present case, the Tribunal though held the Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation for the death/injury of passengers in the vehicle despite the policy being Act only policy. Law in this regard has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Balkrishnan (supra) wherein it has been laid down as under: "26. In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of doubt that a "comprehensive/package policy" would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an "Act policy" stands on a different footing from a "comprehensive/package policy". As the circulars have made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a "comprehensive/package policy" covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the "Act policy" which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a "comprehensive/package policy", the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed in the case of Bhagyalakshmi and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the same." 23. Following the said judgment, this Court in the case of Smt. Sharda (supra) also laid down in case of Act only policy, the risk of occupant of the vehicle is not covered as the occupant is not a third party. Following the said judgment, this Court in the case of Smt. Sharda (supra) also laid down in case of Act only policy, the risk of occupant of the vehicle is not covered as the occupant is not a third party. Further relying on judgment of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Shahidam Bano:2015 (2) RAR 892 (Raj.), it was laid down that the principle of pay and recover as laid down in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh : (2004) 3 SCC 297 also cannot be made applicable. 24. A bare look at the cover note exhibited in the present case clearly indicates that the policy in question is Act only policy and the premium charged by the Insurance Company is Rs. 240/- for Act liability, Rs. 15/- for the driver and Rs. 13 towards service tax. 25. A doubt was raised by counsel for the appellants regarding the charge of Rs. 13/- by the Insurance Company and it was submitted that the same may be towards extended liability, however, on examination, it is clear that service tax was introduced in the year 1994 and the same came into effect by way of Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 1st April, 1994 and it provided for service tax @ 5% and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 13/- apparently is towards service tax only and it cannot be said that the said amount has been charged for extending the amount of liability. 26. In view of the law laid down in the case of Balkrishnan (supra) and the fact that policy in the present case is Act only policy and the injured and the deceased were all traveling as passengers in the insured vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable and, therefore, the finding record by the Tribunal on the issue deserves to be sustained, though on ground different from the ground given by the Tribunal. 27. 27. So far as the enhancement of compensation sought by the appellants is concerned, in the case of Smt. Bilkish only oral evidence was led and documents pertaining to the treatment were produced, no certificate as to the permanent disablement of any nature was produced and, therefore, in absence of any permanent disablement the claim of amount of compensation for alleged loss in earning capacity, cannot be sustained and, therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 28. In the case of Smt. Bishmilla, though pleas were raised regarding permanent disablement, in the said case also no certificate of permanent disablement was produced and no doctor was examined. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 has laid down that for award of compensation towards permanent disablement, not only the certificate pertaining to permanent disablement should be produced, the same is required to be got proved by examining the doctor, in absence thereof, the award passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 29. In the case of Amjad Mohd. claim was filed seeking compensation for death of his wife - Smt. Rajiya Begum. After the evidence was led, an application was filed, claiming that four children of deceased - Smt. Rajiya Begum, which were her legal representatives, could not be impleaded as party and, therefore, they were impleaded as party. The Tribunal held that it was claimed that the deceased was aged 30 years, however the age of the children was claimed at 23 years, 20 years, 18 years and 17 years and, therefore, the Tribunal on account of such contradictory facts available before it, did not believe the statements and the claim made regarding the age of the deceased, awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 75,000/-. 30. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard appears to be contrary to the record, inasmuch as, in the application for compensation, the age of deceased has been indicated at 40 years and though the application was filed by husband and one son in the year 1995, subsequently in the year 1999, application was filed seeking to implead four children as party by indicating their age as on the date of filing application i.e. 23 years, 20 years, 18 years and 17 years. The finding of the Tribunal by indicating the age of the deceased at 30 years and coming to the conclusion that as the age of the children was indicated as 23 years or more, the same was improbable and did not believe the statements of the claimant, cannot be sustained. It was claimed that deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month, however, no material was produced for claiming the said income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/-, however, in view of the fact that deceased in any case was a home maker and her contribution to the family cannot be ignored and in those circumstances, if the notional income at Rs. 15,000/- per annum is taken into consideration and after deducing 1/4th towards personal expenses, the same is taken at Rs. 11,250/- per annum, by applying the multiplier of 15 as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the claimants would be entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,68,750/-. Further for loss of love & affection and loss of consortium, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each. 31. In view thereof, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,28,750/- instead of lump sum compensation of Rs. 75,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 32. So far as the application of Moinuddin is concerned, no evidence by Moinuddin and/or anyone else, was led in support of the claim for compensation. In absence of any evidence regarding the compensation having been led, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the claimant was not entitled to compensation as claimed, however, keeping in view the spirit of provisions of section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the fact that Smt. Mumtaz had died in the accident, the Tribunal should have awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal to the said extent is modified. 33. Consequently, in view of above discussion, while the appeals filed by Smt. Bilkish and Smt. Bishmilla are dismissed, the appeals filed by Amjad Mohd. & Ors. and Moinuddin and Anr., are partly allowed. 34. Though the exoneration of the Insurance Company is upheld, the claimants - Amjad Mohd. & Ors., are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. Consequently, in view of above discussion, while the appeals filed by Smt. Bilkish and Smt. Bishmilla are dismissed, the appeals filed by Amjad Mohd. & Ors. and Moinuddin and Anr., are partly allowed. 34. Though the exoneration of the Insurance Company is upheld, the claimants - Amjad Mohd. & Ors., are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,28,750/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal in the same proportion as indicated by the Tribunal. Moinuddin and Anr., would be equally entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application i.e. 26.7.1995 till the date of actual payment. No order as to costs.